This post is a sponsored post on behalf of Kmart via Izea. The opinions are mine.
The text above stirred up a lot of controversy when it appeared before a post about Kmart by social media blogger Chris Brogan.
It's an example of "sponsored conversation," when a company pays a blogger to post about its products. To many, something about this seems wrong. But in March, Josh Bernoff, author of the best-selling social media book Groundswell and VP of Forrester Research, blogged in support of the idea, so long as it is done carefully. Writes Bernoff:
The challenge, of course, is can bloggers do this and retain any credibility?Brogan also emphasizes disclosure in a lengthy post defending himself and his Kmart post.
We believe they can, if -- and only if -- they obey two rules.
1. They must disclose that they are being paid.
2. They must be able to write whatever they want, positive or negative.
Not everyone agrees. ReadWriteWeb responded with a post titled Forrester is Wrong About Paying Bloggers, arguing that:
Blogging is a beautiful thing. The prospect of this young media being overrun with "pay for play" pseudo-shilling is not an attractive one to us.I, too, am greatly troubled by the thought of bloggers competing to write sponsored posts about products, because of the inevitable pressure they would face to write positive reviews in order to continue to receive sponsorship opportunities.
I also think that Bernoff and Forrester are right that the big question is whether or not a blogger can participate in sponsored conversations while maintaining authenticity. If it turns out that it's not really possible for a blogger to balance the two, then sponsored conversations won't make much sense for either bloggers or marketers.
But what if the practice persists? Should we accept it? Or should we frown upon it and remove sponsored bloggers from our daily reading?
"sponsored conversation?" - you mean advertising copywriting? I know it's hard to earn a living from writing, but come on . . .
ReplyDeleteDisclosure: this is a sponsored post on behalf of Walter Frick.
This is all very interesting. I've had some thoughts here: http://takingcrazypills.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/selling-conversation/
ReplyDeleteSummary: I don't think it's a huge deal.
Despot - thanks for the link. I think you're underestimating the possible threat.
ReplyDeleteHenry Farrell considers some related topics here: http://crookedtimber.org/2006/05/30/norms-and-networks/
Scroll down to "How could the norms structuring the blogosphere be disrupted by money?"
True - I was considering this in the narrow way that you had suggested, as a political blog perhaps endorsing a completely un-political sponsor (like a K-Mart blue light special or something). It becomes more of a problem and more difficult to discern when the line between original thought and paid advocacy gets blurred. I still remain confident in the democratic ability of the online world to determine merit.
ReplyDeleteOf course, this is a very controversial idea, and I haven't read much on the topic. But it seems as though explicitly paid endorsements would be relatively easy to hunt out and discredit the author with.
I'm very open to being wrong, though.
Here's an article on a related topic
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/business/media/08adco.html?ref=business
Perhaps distinguishing advertising from content will become an academic discipline. It's getting difficult.